# "Public good" workers shouldn't be unionized **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 18, 2012, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-good-workers-shouldnt-be-unionized/619121 "2012-04-18T03:55:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-good-workers-shouldnt-be-unionized/619121/21 "2012-04-18T16:47:02Z")
> [@Sicks\_Ate](#): > > When you take the job, you’re told what your salary and compensation will be. Yet again, despite your demands that others work on _your_ behalf, for _your_ good and at _their expense_. Initial expectations, salary schedules, benefits packages, etc… can all be modified by continuing negotiation. The idea that those working for the public good cannot try to negotiate for a better life, to say nothing about collectively bargaining to avoid abuses by management, and must simply accept management’s position as divine fiat, is absurd. If you think that negotiation shows “chutzpah”, you don’t understand what the word means. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-good-workers-shouldnt-be-unionized/619121/22 "2012-04-18T17:29:59Z")
> [@Sicks\_Ate](#): > > When you take the job, you’re told what your salary and compensation will be. How authoritarian. :rolleyes: In a free society, the level of a worker’s compensation should be the result of a negotiation between equals, not a present handed down by some all-powerful overlord. Workers are free to band together and price their labor at whatever the level the market will bear. That’s free enterprise, baby. And if you don’t like it, move to someplace more repressive. ---
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-good-workers-shouldnt-be-unionized/619121/23 "2012-04-18T17:37:11Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > The public can also be unfair and uncooperative - particularly when it comes to police. I mean, yeah, police unions often go to bat for cops that really shouldn’t be on the force anymore. They also go to bat for good cops who have been falsely accused of misconduct. The next time there’s a Tawana Brawley, and the public is calling for some cops’ heads based on media reports and demagoguery, who’s going to stand up for the accused, if not their union? The mayor’s office? I think it’s a good idea to have an organization that is not entirely dependent on polling numbers involved in these They do go to bad for bad and good cops. As far as police go, I’m not against them having an organization that they can rely on for legal defense and similar matters. They do have a job that has a unique potential for civil liability. > [@Miller](#): > > First of all, weakening unions won’t prevent blue flu. “Blue flu” exists specifically because some unions are legally prevented from striking - instead of striking, they all call in sick at the same time. There’s not really any way to prevent that, short of not giving cops any sick days at Some unions should e legally prevented from striking…police definitely fall into that category. Any public safety employee or anyone who fills a vital service should be similarly barred from striking. Air traffic controllers, anyone? No, there’s no way to keep an entire shift from calling in sick…it’s still petty, entitled bullshit, though. > [@Miller](#): > > Secondly, while I have no doubt that there are many examples of unjustified union work stoppages, there are also plenty of fully justified union work stoppages. I think you’re being unfair by automatically assuming that any action by a police or similar union is just “bullying for more benefits.” Ok, I’ll say that I don’t assume that about any. I’ll just say that there’s no doubt that it happens a non-negligible percentage of the time. > [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I don’t “serve” the public. I work for the public. > Teaching, policing, firefighting, political office, etc. is not community service. It is a job. If you want service then look for people in orange vests picking up trash on the freeway. I work for the state and the state is an employer like IBM or the corner store down the street and should be held to employment standards like everyone else. Well, yeah you do kind of serve the public, and you’re not just doing a job. The difference is that for many employees in the private sector, their customers choose to deal with them, and they may go elsewhere if they aren’t satisfied. The reason that government service is termed as such is that hypothetically, you realize when you take a government job that your ‘customers’ have much more limited choices (if any). Therefore (again, hypothetically and optimally) when one takes a job in public service, they commit to providing for the greater good of the community. The state is not an employer like a store, for the reasons stated above. In addition, governments do not have the freedom to allocate funds as they may choose. Just because you or a firefighter wants a raise, and some council members want to give you a raise, does not mean that it can just happen. > [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I would also contend that your statement shows that you have no experience in a public sector jobs, teachers (from my experience), police and firefighters (from those I know) put up with quite a lot of abuse in their jobs precisely because they “serve the public” and job actions are considered when the conditions they work in are such that they cannot do their job. Would you go out and get a bachelor’s degree and pay for tests to do you job if you couldn’t earn a living wage to feed you family? Teachers won’t so we fight for decent pay along with the right to not be abused by parents and students. Do you pay for your office supplies to do your job? I do because in some districts supplies are not adequate. I know police officers that are frustrated because they want to be out doing their job but are stuck doing needless paperwork. I have worked in public sector jobs for 10 years. My degree (albeit a bachelors) is in public administration…which covers topics like this, believe it or not. I did find, as an aside, that many/most of the instructors or speakers or officials I contacted during school were pretty firmly in the pro-union camp, and probably 95% of them were what would be termed ‘liberal’. When you decided to become a teacher, did you know what teaching paid? I would be astounded to hear that so many teachers graduated and suddenly realized that in most districts, teaching pays shit. I know teachers. I know they sometimes have to buy supplies. And cops and paperwork go hand-in-hand…IME, any paperwork is, to a cop, needless paperwork. > [@MandaJo](#): > > What about agreeing to do the job for the year, and then at the end of the year (or five, or ten) wanting to discuss your options? Why is that chutzpah? Public agencies have more difficulty affording this opportunity. That’s why many public service jobs are in grid or scale systems. It’s very easy to see what you will make and when. Want more money than that? Get a promotion or change jobs. Look, I’ve been in a public sector job for years. I haven’t had a step raise or cost of living raise in years. Retirement match has been cut. Do I want a union? Nah. The government can’t afford to give me that stuff, and I’m cool. Possibility of unpaid furlough days? Ok, whatever. Times are tough. > [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > I’ve talked to corrections officers in KY who were paid under $23,000 a year (which doesn’t help attract or retain quality officers), have no training for new hires (creates a very unsafe working environment when you’re dealing with inmates), don’t have access to weapons (again, safety), and don’t have radios that work inside the walls of the prison. Officers that were friends with the warden got the plum shifts and assignments. > > These guys were fighting tooth and nail for a union because the state sure as hell wasn’t changing things out of the goodness of their hearts. So you can take your soft lighting and milder coffee and…never mind this ain’t the pit. > > ETA: Other government employees that often have poor working conditions: Nurses, road crews, inner city school teachers, sanitation workers, probation officers, social workers. My recommendation? Don’t be a prison guard in Kentucky. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Yet again, despite your demands that others work on _your_ behalf, for _your_ good and at _their expense_. Initial expectations, salary schedules, benefits packages, etc… can all be modified by continuing negotiation. The idea that those working for the public good cannot try to negotiate for a better life, to say nothing about collectively bargaining to avoid abuses by management, and must simply accept management’s position as divine fiat, is absurd. If you think that negotiation shows “chutzpah”, you don’t understand what the word means. Agreeing with a certain pay and benefit package upon accepting employment, then strong-arming your employer to provide more than was agree because you now ‘want a better life?’ Chutzpah. Yeah, I know what it means. > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > How authoritarian. :rolleyes: In a free society, the level of a worker’s compensation should be the result of a negotiation between equals, not a present handed down by some all-powerful overlord. Workers are free to band together and price their labor at whatever the level the market will bear. That’s free enterprise, baby. And if you don’t like it, move to someplace more repressive. I could have phrased that differently…you are _informed_ what the benefits/salary of the position are. Workers banding together and demanding a certain wage _isn’t_ showing what the market will bear! They are banding together to demand _more_ than the wage that the market settled on for that job. That ain’t free market, that’s ain’t free enterprise. Baby. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-good-workers-shouldnt-be-unionized/619121/24 "2012-04-18T17:49:24Z")
It is a basic human right that you are free to associate. Stripping union rights is an infringement. Its no real coincidence that among the first people the extremists incarcerate are the union leaders. They are at the forefront of the struggle for rights, and their power to ensure the safety of those rights comes from a collective will. Undermining that voice is the first step in totalitarianism. Seems like some folks want lots of freedom for everyone who happens to hold their point of view p- the real test is how you cope, negotiate and accommodate opposition. Anything else falls far short of civilisation. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-good-workers-shouldnt-be-unionized/619121/25 "2012-04-18T17:52:11Z")
> [@Sicks\_Ate](#): > > My recommendation? Don’t be a prison guard in Kentucky. Is that supposed to be funny? So you admit there do exist poor working conditions for public employees in this country? Because this is what you said originally: "Honestly, what US government employee really has to deal with poor ‘working conditions?’ " These conditions aren’t exclusive to COs in KY, by the way. Having a union gives them a voice to address them. And this doesn’t just affect the COs or the inmates, but it effectively endangers the public. I like knowing there are well-armed, well-trained, and well-paid men and women keeping the bad guys from escaping the prisons in my state. ---
**Author:** ![Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-good-workers-shouldnt-be-unionized/619121/26 "2012-04-18T17:54:33Z")
I’ve published a paper on the effects of a physician’s strike. I’ve also worked in healthcare during the same physician’s strike. This was in Canada, incidentally, so don’t freak out. Based on my observations at the time, many if not most of the doctors worked at least their normal hours, trying to avoid any actual medical problems during the strike, while still making the point about working conditions, and admittedly, inconveniencing the general public. If you can’t strike because you’re a ‘public good’ worker, you’ve no other option but to leave the job or go somewhere else. This isn’t good for the public good. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-good-workers-shouldnt-be-unionized/619121/27 "2012-04-18T18:03:25Z")
> [@Invisible\_Chimp](#): > > If you have a problem with these, it sounds like you should blame the legislatures, not unions. The “3 percent at 50” was even bipartisan with little debate, so you can’t blame the evil liberals either. That demonstrates exactly what many people feel the problem with public sector unions is: they’ve become a powerful interest group in their own right, sufficiently powerful that many governments bow down before them. Government decisions then get made based on what’s best for the unions, rather than what’s best for the people as a whole. It’s worth noting that until recently the very idea of public sector unions was seen as absurd. Both President Franklin Roosevelt and George Meany, the first head of the AFL-CIO, [spoke out against the idea](http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trouble-with-public-sector-unions). When a private company negotiates with a union, the company management faces two competing forces: the union’s demands and the financial needs of the company. Management strives to find the best balance between those two forces. But with a public union, “management” (aka the government) has no personal motivation to balance the union’s demands against sound, long-term financial decisions. From a politician’s perspective it’s usually better to give the powerful and focused unions what they want, while there’s no powerful interest group on the other side to argue against them. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-good-workers-shouldnt-be-unionized/619121/28 "2012-04-18T18:11:42Z")
It’s kind of rich that people demand that teachers and cops should do their jobs out of altruism, and therefore should accept lower pay and crappier working condidtions than they would for a private employer. Hey, they have the privelege of working for the public good! Except, how much exactly should a teacher expect in lower salary in return for being able to work for the public good? How much of a pay cut would YOU take, to serve the public good? Probably zero, right? ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-good-workers-shouldnt-be-unionized/619121/29 "2012-04-18T18:13:13Z")
If you treat public workers like slaves, then exactly what sorts of people are you going to get to be public workers? Will you ultimately have to use work release prisoners or something? If your goal is to not have any public workers at all, then by all means continue on stripping away rights. I have a feeling that you do want someone to do these jobs though, right? Why are you so hostile to those people then? ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-good-workers-shouldnt-be-unionized/619121/30 "2012-04-18T18:13:14Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > That demonstrates exactly what many people feel the problem with public sector unions is: they’ve become a powerful interest group in their own right, sufficiently powerful that many governments bow down before them. Government decisions then get made based on what’s best for the unions, rather than what’s best for the people as a whole. > > It’s worth noting that until recently the very idea of public sector unions was seen as absurd. Both President Franklin Roosevelt and George Meany, the first head of the AFL-CIO, [spoke out against the idea](http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trouble-with-public-sector-unions). When a private company negotiates with a union, the company management faces two competing forces: the union’s demands and the financial needs of the company. Management strives to find the best balance between those two forces. But with a public union, “management” (aka the government) has no personal motivation to balance the union’s demands against sound, long-term financial decisions. From a politician’s perspective it’s usually better to give the powerful and focused unions what they want, while there’s no powerful interest group on the other side to argue against them. Yeah cuz corporate interests are vastly unheard inside legislatures, mainly because they don’t have money or lobbyists or any motivation to reduce the number of public employees or get their wages and benefits cut. In other words, if you take out the lobbying efforts of public employee unions, do you reaaaaaaly think legislators will finally legislate only based on what’s good for the public. You think the only thing holding these guys back from truly serving the public that elects them are the public sector unions? Don’t you think, maybe, the public sector union members know a little something about what’s good for them and their communities as well? As opposed to sitting back and letting legislators always bow to the money of corporate interests? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-good-workers-shouldnt-be-unionized/619121/31 "2012-04-18T18:15:56Z")
> [@Sicks\_Ate](#): > > Honestly, what US government employee really has to deal with poor ‘working conditions?’ Unionized ones? Public employees have unions and good working conditions. Why change a system that’s working? > [@Sicks\_Ate](#): > > Yeah, you can always _improve_ conditions; hell, I’d love softer lighting and less ambient noise. And an ergonomic keyboard. And a milder coffee blend, that’s not so hard on my stomach. And… What fantasy world do you live in? Public employees aren’t asking for mood music and gourmet coffee. They want decent working conditions, fair salaries, and protection from arbitrary management. My last contract negotiation had some wild demands. We hadn’t had a raise in eight years. Our opening position was to ask if our salaries could be raised by the amount that inflation had gone up those eight years. We didn’t get that of course. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-good-workers-shouldnt-be-unionized/619121/32 "2012-04-18T18:18:03Z")
How dare you bully your poor helpless government like that ☹ /sarcasm ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-good-workers-shouldnt-be-unionized/619121/33 "2012-04-18T18:20:53Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I couldn’t agree more. IMO, collective bargaining and striking should be disallowed by all public employee groups for which a person cannot be replaced the next day with a non-union worker. It is a matter of both responsible spending of public dollars and safety. I agree that there existence results in a form of blackmail. So what’s your plan? Socialism? The government just decides how much salary people get paid and it’s illegal to refuse to work? Because that’s what you’re saying, comrade. I don’t suppose you’re volunteering to let the government decide your salary though. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-good-workers-shouldnt-be-unionized/619121/34 "2012-04-18T18:22:36Z")
> [@Sicks\_Ate](#): > > Agreeing with a certain pay and benefit package upon accepting employment, then strong-arming your employer to provide more than was agree because you now ‘want a better life?’ Chutzpah. Yeah, I know what it means. No, you obviously do not. Here’s a good definition: an employee signs a contract , fulfills the conditions of their contract, and engages in collective bargaining to improve the nature of their employment. Others, who benefit from that person’s profession, demand that those whose work provides a benefit for the public good must work in whatever conditions and for whatever compensation their superiors deem fit, and must meekly accept it and not try to negotiate. “Work to improve my life, and how dare you try to peacefully and legally negotiate an improvement to your own, in exchange for services rendered?!?” _That_, is chutzpah. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-good-workers-shouldnt-be-unionized/619121/35 "2012-04-18T18:23:18Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > How dare you bully your poor helpless government like that ☹ > > /sarcasm Yes, it’s real fun being in a public service union. It’s illegal to go on strike. So our negotiations basically consists of begging. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-good-workers-shouldnt-be-unionized/619121/36 "2012-04-18T18:25:17Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > How dare you bully your poor helpless government like that ☹ > > /sarcasm It’s funny how Righties are all about defending the poor, helpless governmentbythepeople when public unions are negotiating their contracts, but then attack that same government as bloated, wasteful socialism every other time… ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-good-workers-shouldnt-be-unionized/619121/37 "2012-04-18T18:27:48Z")
I’d be interested if Sicks Ate thinks there are other jobs out there where you’re expected to work thirty or forty years for your starting salary. Most businesses routinely increase the salaries of long term employees. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-good-workers-shouldnt-be-unionized/619121/38 "2012-04-18T18:30:39Z")
> [@Sicks\_Ate](#): > > I have worked in public sector jobs for 10 years. My degree (albeit a bachelors) is in public administration…which covers topics like this, believe it or not. I did find, as an aside, that many/most of the instructors or speakers or officials I contacted during school were pretty firmly in the pro-union camp, and probably 95% of them were what would be termed ‘liberal’. > When you decided to become a teacher, did you know what teaching paid? I would be astounded to hear that so many teachers graduated and suddenly realized that in most districts, teaching pays shit. I know teachers. I know they sometimes have to buy supplies. > And cops and paperwork go hand-in-hand…IME, any paperwork is, to a cop, needless paperwork. I would be interested in what your public sector job is. It seems the majority of pro public-service union are discussing are ones that are dangerous or one in crappy conditions. Do you draw a distinction between police, fire and teacher unions as opposed to DMV workers, courthouse janitors, etc.? I’m also curious if you see a distinction between providing a service to the community and community service. The state (and let’s throw county/city in there to) provides services to the public. To do this, they need to hire people to provide those services. I don’t “serve the public” although I do provide a public service. I work for the state (technically LEA) to provide those services but there is nothing in that that presupposes I should make sacrifices other don’t have to simply because I work in a public sector job. [QUOTE=Sicks Ate] There is another point against unionizing public workers. Any ‘labor action’ by publc workers is not to the detriment of an ‘unfair, uncooperative’ corporation; it’s against the public they are supposed to be serving. See police officer’s ‘blue flu’ or similar actions by fire departments. Or threats by sanitation workers to quit collecting. It’s bullying, hurting citizens or putting them in danger in order to strongarm more benefits. Basically, extortion to modify an existing employment contract. [/QUOTE] The other point I have a problem with is that your position seems to assume that “public service” is non-optional. Not trying to setup a strawman but I want you to clarify your position. I choose to be a teacher but I suppose it applies to police, firemen, ATCs, etc. If I choose to strike because of unsafe conditions, more pay, lower class size or whatever, I do not get paid while I strike. Let me say that again - I do not get paid if I do not do my job. So now we’ve eliminated that I owe you my services because you are paying me. What obligation do I owe the public to be a teacher simply because I’m qualified. Am I allowed to leave teaching? If so, why can I not leave temporarily until conditions or pay improves. If the courthouse janitors walk out unless they get $20/hr and you don’t want to pay it because private janitors get $15/hr, fire the workers and hire scabs at $15/hr. In other words, why do I owe the public anything? Who are you to say I can’t make demands for certain concessions and if I don’t get them, I’ll leave teaching? Can I at some point say “I choose not to serve the public anymore.” or am I required to continue on as a sanitation worker, teacher, police officer, etc. You see, the point you’re missing is that the State is obligated to provide the service, not a particular worker (or collectively all workers) unless the choose to. If the worker chooses not to pick up your trash, the City can choose to meet their demands OR hire new sanitation engineers a la Reagan and the FAA. The State is required to provide a free public education, but that does not obligate teachers as individuals to be in the classroom. I can leave if I no longer desire to work under those terms or you can change the terms if I (meaning the collective teachers) are that valuable to you. So answer this question: if I do serve the public, under what conditions will you allow me to no longer serve the public or consequently am I enslaved to serving the “common good” in perpetuity? My father was management in the private sector and I grew up anti-union because I heard stories of how they abused the system. When I became a teacher, I was anti-union but after seeing how the union protected teachers from the abuses of the system, I am 100% pro-union and a conservative. Address these issues for me: 1. Should I be required to work outside of my contracted hours for no pay because I serve the public? 2. Should I be required to pay for my own supplies simply to do my job because I serve the public? 3. Should I be required to provide paper, pencils and other educational supplies to my students out of my own money because I serve the public? 4. Should I accept verbal abuse from students and parents and in some cases physical abuse from students because I serve the public? 5. Should I accept intimidation from administrators because they choose to take actions that violate state law and they do not want me to take advatage of legal protection? Please note that not one of those involves money except the working outside of contract hours. To be honest, it’s not even the extra pay but if I’m required to work 4-6pm, my son doesn’t get picked up from school. One of the reasons I accept the shit pay and inner-city conditions was that my kids have me to be with them after school and the summer and not a babysitter. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-good-workers-shouldnt-be-unionized/619121/39 "2012-04-18T19:43:02Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > In other words, if you take out the lobbying efforts of public employee unions, do you reaaaaaaly think legislators will finally legislate only based on what’s good for the public. You think the only thing holding these guys back from truly serving the public that elects them are the public sector unions? Did I say that public sector unions are the only thing holding legislators back from truly serving the public? If not, then why are you trying to pin that viewpoint on me? Obviously there are many things that influence legislatures and other governing bodies, but at the moment public sector unions are the main driving force behind skyrocketing spending by state and local governments ([up 60% in a decade](http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/total-state-spending-has-not-been-cut/)) which has sent several states and many cities into disaster mode over the past few years. > [@](#): > > Don’t you think, maybe, the public sector union members know a little something about what’s good for them and their communities as well? As opposed to sitting back and letting legislators always bow to the money of corporate interests? You imply that we face an either/or letting public sector unions control legislatures or letting corporate interests do so. In fact we face no such choice. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-good-workers-shouldnt-be-unionized/619121/40 "2012-04-18T20:15:58Z")
Any attempt to prohibit a group of people from unionizing is absurd on the face of it. Suppose that the police don’t form an official union. But now suppose that their working conditions are intolerable. So all of them talk together, and decide that they’re all going to call in sick every day until their working conditions are improved. What can the city do? Well, it can fire them, of course. Refusing to come to work is certainly a valid grounds for firing someone. But that still leaves the city without a police force, and if the conditions are that intolerable, they’re going to have a hard time replacing them. It could fire only a few of them, but that doesn’t address the issue of the rest of the force refusing to come in to work. So the city finds itself forced to address the intolerable conditions. What happened here? A group of people decided that conditions were bad enough to warrant taking a risk, they exercised their right of free assembly to come to an agreement with each other on this point, and by refusing to work they get the problems fixed. But the net effect works out just the same way as if they had officially been unionized and went on strike. A law against official unions is completely unenforceable, since an unofficial union can do anything an official one can do. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-good-workers-shouldnt-be-unionized/619121.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-good-workers-shouldnt-be-unionized/619121.md?page=3)